Personally I believe that the recent revival in the belief in a flat Earth is the product of an elaborate psyop by chaos magicians, but that's just a hunch.

What do you think is the best Flat Earth material, the most popular Flat Earth material, and what path did you take to arrive at your current state of belief?

Click to expand...

I was first exposed to the idea through Tex at Vault-Co, and of also hearing that loudmouth Sinhead McCarthy had Flat Earthers on her site. Up until then it simply didn't occur to me that there was such a thing as a flat earther beyond the marginalised, redneck contingent. I flicked through to "Atlantean Conspiracy" by Eric Dubay by Vault-Co's link and watched some of 200 Proofs the Earth is not a Spinning Ball.

This was about a year or so ago, and I was just nosing around. I prompty forgot about it and got on with my life. However one specific fact bothered me, one about parts of the Nile flowing for however many miles, and yet having a drop in water level of only a foot. I couldn't rationalise away this away and it really irritated me. By all rights, that water should be flowing uphill. I began to think more seriously about it and conduct thought experiments in my own mind. I also have a method of testing a new belief - To adopt it, espouse it on Discord and other chats or whatever, and present evidence accordingly, and then if anyone can disprove me beyond simply repeating the established narrative (to which I have already gotten counterproofs) then I'll drop the idea. So far, of course, noone has been able to present evidence for the curvature of the earth (just like noone has been able to demonstrate the mechanism by which HIV causes AIDS).

The first thing I remembered from my physics classes at school when I began to seriously think about this about a month or so ago was that gravity always pulls to the centre of mass. So, my first thought experiments were about the atmosphere. Consider:

- You put a bowling ball stationary in space. Near it you place a stationary golf ball. The golf ball, allegedly, moves directly towards the bowling ball.

- Next, you put a spinning bowling ball in space, and repeat the thing with the golf ball. The result is exactly the same - the golf ball moves directly to the centre of mass. it doesn't pull the golf ball into an orbit around itself.

Barring a few dips and lumps, the earth and bowling ball both have a uniform mass. As the mass isn't affected by the spin, there's no way for gravity to cause a geostationary orbit. The object (golf ball, moon lander, whatever) has to already be moving at a speed high enough to match the movement of the spinning ball.

So how is it possible that the atmosphere is pulled 'around' the earth, exactly at geosynchronous orbit, so perfectly that you can feel a slight breeze caused by temperature differences?

The arguments I have had against this are as follows:

- Gas diffuses into moving containers (however, the earth is not a container - It is spinning in a gas, like if you put span an object in a bathtub full of water).

- The spinning of the earth has pushed the atmosphere around for long enough (however, if you take a car ride for half an hour, the air resistance against the car is still the same during the journey than at the start or finish. Being a gas, air can't carry momentum very well at all, especially not at 1000mph; you just need to turn on a hairdryer to see how quickly the forward push of the air disperses.)

If you take a hairdryer into a middle of a field and use it to pester bugs or some other weird thing (why would you even have a hairdryer in the middle of a field), then you can see for yourself that the push of the air at maybe a one metre / second coming out the dryer drops off within maybe half a metre distance.

Yet, simultaneously, you also believe that the atmosphere of the whole field is being pushed along by the spinning earth, wobbling and tilted on its axis, at hundreds of miles an hour, with the ball earth revolving at over a thousand miles per hour.. because the magic of "gravity" inexplicably makes the atmosphere stick to the same spot - and that you experience none of this horrendous, mind bending, hundreds of miles an hour airblast (motorcycling without wind protection to the face at even 40mph is uncomfortable..) despite the results of the bowling ball experiment.

Thought experiment 2: Felix and the Cannonballs

What goes up, must come down. So the saying goes. The saying doesn't go, 'What goes up, must go around' (the earth, to the West, if I have the spin in the right direction).

Obviously, the further you travel from a spinning ball, the faster you have to travel to remain in that same position relative to it, because of the increased circumference.

Which means if you fired a cannonball from the equator directly 'upwards' (pointed out into space), it should *always* fall Westwards.

1031 miles per hour of earths spin = about 500 metres a second. Now this is something I haven't done the math for, because basically I'm lazy and I think that the thought experiment doesn't need it, because the same principles applied elsewhere demonstrate its validity without going into too much detail.

As the cannonball travels higher and higher, it should appear to move Westwards due to the earth revolving at such immense speed. The forward momentum to started out with (500 metres per second) cannot be increased by any real degree by atmospheric push (it's a cannonball, air does not push on cannonball enough to make it travel even 1 mile an hour). Yet, its starting momentum is inadequate to remain above its launch position, because the circumference has increased. By all rights, the cannonaball should always fall at the very least *beside* where it was fired from, or further still. But if you throw something directly up, it always falls directly down.

Felix takes off in his balloon in a geostationary atmosphere, and goes to 24 miles up. (interestingly, his cockpit view shows an eye level horizon, but the fish eye lense view shows Planet New Mexico beneath him). Felix has no initial speed to enter orbit with - He isn't a lunar lander coming back from the moon, he just floated upwards. Now, by nature of him floating upwards in a big balloon, he should float Westwards. As the atmosphere gets thinner and thinner (remember our experiment throwing a balloon and seeing it come to a stop in the air?) there definitely isn't enough atmosphere to keep pushing his tin can around at 900 mph or whatever the speed of the earths revolution is at that latitude.

Long story short, Felix hangs around in space for longer than a few minutes.. like a bauble... perfectly stationary relative to the earth.. even though the earth below him should be moving at a faster speed.

When Felix comes back down, he's still only some 55 miles away in New Mexico, and not several hundred miles away.

Ditto for the high altitude ballloon recently launched by Rob Skiba, a Biblical Flat Earther of Testing the Globe. It goes way, way up, and yet stays perfectly above where it was launched from, so that they can easily chase it by car, instead of needing transatlantic flights of 600mph to keep up with their balloon.

So those are my two initial thought experiments before getting into flat earth proper and going through Youtube stuff from Flat Earth Asshole and Eric Dubay who are the two big cheeses.

It's funny that the Masonic 'globe' psyop has been so effective that counter-establishments think that Flat Earth itself could be a psyop. This falls under 'contempt without prior investigation', of dismissing the idea out of hand as far too crazy to be real.

However, as I was already a Holocaust skeptic, global warmthink skeptic, white nationalist... and at the same time as Flat Earth looking at works by Henry Bauer and Peter Duesberg HIV/AIDS skepticism, for me adopting flat earth theory was less "Wow, just Wow" and more "Huh, so this curvature isn't there. That's actually really cool, it would be amazing if it really was flat".

Hoaxes by Jews, Masons, and Jewish Masons follow a distinct pattern:

- A claim is made as fact, without any prior examination of evidence, or with extremely shonky evidence produced by a close group of vested interests.

(See: Muh 6 Million, HIV = AIDs announced by Robert Gallo without proper examination of his proofs, Global Warming, 'An Inconvenient Truth' based on a sample study of 12 trees in a region less than a mile square)

- There is a strong profit motive for this claim to be entrenched by the establishment.

(Muh Six Million, That HIV has magical powers unlike any other virus and can stay in your body for a decade and kill you even after you have immunity, that the sky will fall down, or as Stephen Hawkings said, will turn to acid, the fires of hell will be visited upon the suburbs for not appeasing the climate god, and that the earth is a globe hurtling through space at millions of miles per hour).

And normally...

- The claim can be disputed or shown to be fallacious by anyone at low expense with honest investigation.

- No evidence of 6 million jews being incinerated has ever been shown, and infact at Treblinka, where allegedly hundreds of thousands of jews were buried in mass graves, ground radar geophys confirmed with 100% certainty that no such thing ever occured.

- It is impossible for a passenger retrovirus that your antibodies force into dormancy, like any other virus, to suddenly spring out of nowhere and disabled your immune system a decade after you originally developed immunity to it.

- A minor change of 0.04 to 0.05% Co2 in the earths atmos"sphere" will not cause the sky to belch acid in some horrific movie style apocalypse and Biblical type destruction of human civilisation.

- Water cannot stick to a spinning ball.

An Elaborate Psyop falls into Theorising About a Motive, and it annoys Eric Dubay. This video makes me grin from ear to ear, and yes, the phrase Flat Earth Psy Op does appear.

To the first collection of thought experiments, I would say that you have to make a careful distinction between the origin of the Earth-atmosphere-satellites (Moon) system and the continuous operation of this system. If I say that the atmosphere is rotating so that it is stationary with respect to the Earth's surface this does not mean that I am committed to any particular hypothesis about how it came to rotate in such a fashion. If you want to disprove a spherical Earth using this line of argument you would have to show that the system was unstable i.e. that given the atmosphere was already rotating in such a fashion it would not continue to do so.

To the second collection of thought experiments, I would say that this is why rockets are usually launched from west to east. (This causes Israel problems) If you don't think that satellites are real, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

In some cases you seem to be arguing that the notion of a rotating Earth is inconsistent with physical law, but the idea that the same physical laws apply to terrestrial objects and the motion of heavenly bodies is a relatively recent one. If you want to continue to argue along these lines you should try to make clear what physical laws you believe apply.

If I say that the atmosphere is rotating so that it is stationary with respect to the Earth's surface this does not mean that I am committed to any particular hypothesis about how it came to rotate in such a fashion.

Click to expand...

Sure, but this is the whole point of testing ones own beliefs.

It is only through a process of 'really reconsidering' that I arrived at my current position, as I've demonstrated

If you want to disprove a spherical Earth using this line of argument you would have to show that the system was unstable i.e. that given the atmosphere was already rotating in such a fashion it would not continue to do so

In some cases you seem to be arguing that the notion of a rotating Earth is inconsistent with physical law, but the idea that the same physical laws apply to terrestrial objects and the motion of heavenly bodies is a relatively recent one.

Click to expand...

Yes, well, if the laws of physics have to end where your belief system begins, then it's not a physical truth (as ball earthers claim) but an article of faith. The bone of contention is that flat earthers are motivated by faith and ball earthers are motivated by appeals to science, reason and logic, whereas I think this converation is begin to reveal that conventional idea is not accurate.

I also have a method of testing a new belief - To adopt it, espouse it on Discord and other chats or whatever, and present evidence accordingly, and then if anyone can disprove me beyond simply repeating the established narrative (to which I have already gotten counterproofs) then I'll drop the idea. So far, of course, noone has been able to present evidence for the curvature of the earth

Click to expand...

That's a good method, but only if the people youre talking with are sufficiently expert in the field. In this case I would say, that certainly they were not. Why? Because there are some very basic and well known observations which support the curved earth as the most likely / simple explanation. The Ancient Greeks drew the same conclusion, and even managed to calculate the radius fairly accurately. I'm fairly certain that Eratosthenes wasn't part of a 2300 year old Jewish Masonic plot. (Though you never know. Those jews know how to play the long game!)

The observation which allowed him to calculate the radius was the fact that shadows fall at different angles depending on latitude. Another observation is that the constellations change when you travel north/south. They had more, but those are the two I remember at the moment.

I hope this isn't what you're referring to as "narrative"... unless you want to claim that those observations are made up?

Obviously, the further you travel from a spinning ball, the faster you have to travel to remain in that same position relative to it, because of the increased circumference.

Which means if you fired a cannonball from the equator directly 'upwards' (pointed out into space), it should *always* fall Westwards.

1031 miles per hour of earths spin = about 500 metres a second. Now this is something I haven't done the math for, because basically I'm lazy and I think that the thought experiment doesn't need it,

Click to expand...

Let me do the math for you.

At 1km above the surface, the radius is 1.000157 times greater. The distance travelled by a geostationary point at that height is likewise 1.000157 times longer than a point at the surface. If you shoot a cannonball 1km into the air, it stays airborne for 28.2 seconds. During that time the earth has moved 13056.6 m. The corresponding geostationary point 1km up has moved 13058,6 m. That is, the horizontal displacement of the cannonball is a whopping 2m. Note that this is an upper bound, not an exact estimate. That's so tiny it wouldn't even be measurable, I'd venture to guess, because you can't aim that accurately.

Likewise if you fire the cannonball at an immense 1000 m/s, it reaches 50 km above the surface, stays airborne for 200s, and the upper bound on displacement is 726m. Nowhere near the "hundreds of miles" you guesstimated in the space Jump example.

Now this is all assuming a perfect vacuum, so the results aren't exactly exact. With air resistance you'll stay airborne longer and be displaced furhter. But not hundreds of times further. Now I haven't done basic physics for 10 years, so someone can check my calculations if they like.

My point here is that you can not decide not to do the math, that the math is superfluous because the effect is "obviously" so large that the details don't matter. You are not expert enough to make that judgement, and in this case your judgement was off. Way off.

Either the momentum disappears, or it is transferred to another object. If you think the conservation of momentum does not apply to fluids, I would really like to hear why you think that's the case. If you think that the Earth's atmosphere and oceans could not continue to rotate because they would lose their momentum to some other object, which object do you think that is?

Yes, well, if the laws of physics have to end where your belief system begins, then it's not a physical truth (as ball earthers claim) but an article of faith.

Click to expand...

The idea that the same physical laws apply everywhere in the universe is based on the Copernican Revolution ("as above, so below"). Why would you believe in the idea of universal scientific laws if celestial mechanics is a bunch of baloney?

The bone of contention is that flat earthers are motivated by faith and ball earthers are motivated by appeals to science, reason and logic, whereas I think this converation is begin to reveal that conventional idea is not accurate.

Click to expand...

If that's really what you care about most then you should just stay out of fringe theories entirely. If you want to be perceived as "rational" and "logical" then you should just do what is perceived to be "rational" and "logical".

In order to believe in a spinning ball, universal scientific laws have to be a bunch of baloney. Air behaves this way, except when applied to Gravity, then Gravity does it.. Gravity does this, Gravity does that... works in different ways at different sizes... you name it, Gravity (your god) does it..

All I can do is point out the obvious.. if people are too fucked up to be able to see that as anything other than "fringe theory" then there's not a lot I can do..

To adopt it, espouse it on Discord and other chats or whatever, and present evidence accordingly, and then if anyone can disprove me beyond simply repeating the established narrative (to which I have already gotten counterproofs) then I'll drop the idea.

Click to expand...

What is the flat earth counterproof to the established narrative that retrograde motion proves heliocentrism?

As a side note, we all expected this shift to pre-Christian paganism in response to the death of secularism (Science is dead and we killed him), but it is a bit alarming how quickly the zeitgeist is moving in that direction. I thought we would at least keep conservation of momentum around, but it appears we will be returning to Greek-era physics (best-case).

Personally I believe that the recent revival in the belief in a flat Earth is the product of an elaborate psyop by chaos magicians, but that's just a hunch.

Click to expand...

You don't understand, this is an emergent response to a complete societal loss of trust. If institutions, scientists, teachers, doctors and lawyers are all proven liars, then it makes sense that people will only trust what they can confirm to their own satisfaction. Skepticism- real skepticism, of the sort Dawkins would blush at- is the true impetus behind this movement. Then all knowledge is restricted by the limits of a person's individual capacity for scientific reasoning. Therefore, scientific knowledge in the future will converge over time to the average person's level of understanding.

As a side note, we all expected this shift to pre-Christian paganism in response to the death of secularism (Science is dead and we killed him), but it is a bit alarming how quickly the zeitgeist is moving in that direction. I thought we would at least keep conservation of momentum around, but it appears we will be returning to Greek-era physics (best-case).

Click to expand...

I hope you're kidding. FE has many Christian adherents because the Bible states (correctly) the earth is flat.

Infact, this trend is so prevalent that Eric Dubay (probable thal) is condemned often by Christian flat earthers for 'denying Jesus', and many of them of mistakenly make the argument that heliocentrism is motivated by 'sun worshipping paganism.'

Proves that it's possible to be right about one thing and totally clueless about the rest, I guess.

Is it your contention that fluids are not made of many small particles?

Click to expand...

Consider a hairdryer, or a jet ski, or any act of pushing a fluid or gas around.

The kinetic energy starts out concentrated and directional. Then as they come into contact with other particles, it is dispersed into smaller and smaller amounts and becomes heat through friction.

If you ride a jetski in the ocean, the concentrated stream of water out the back of the jetski does not keep going throughout the entire ocean. It is quickly dispersed.

If you turn on a hairdryer, that concentrated push of air is quickly dispersed.

Yet, if you stand in the middle of a field of still air, you simultaneously believe that you are on ball spinning faster than the speed of sound.

How?

What kind of magic is gravity that it holds a gas in a geostationary orbit as if it were a solid object?

As already stated, gravity pulls towards the centre of mass.. a spinning ball has no variation in mass due to the spin, so, it pulls directly to the centre of mass..

Yet the magic of "Gravity", completely and inexplicably holds the atmosphere precisely in place around the ball-earth revolving on its axis, as if it is possible for a gas to behave like a solid object in geostationary orbit.

If you put a spinning ball in a tub of water, you would get friction and the ball would slow down, yet when it comes to "Gravity" peoples disbelief is suspended, and they simply take it as a given, just like all other hoaxes of received information, where 'everyone knows' X, yet X is an edifice of thought, and not proved in the present through active experiments.

The simple fact that this "planet" is not scoured by a 1000mph+ windblast by the atmo"sphere" it is "spinning in" is proof enough that in order to believe in the Heliocentric model, one has to suspend the credibility of the senses, of all common sense and experience.

Consider this: You guys are on a forum for "Neanderthals." You claim to operate, per se, on the basis of preserving genetic interests over tens of millenia.

Yet you can't bring yourselves to suspend belief, even for a moment, in a theory created by specific individuals which has only become "known" as "fact" for maybe 500 years, which goes against all prior knowledge and history of the sciences?

A theory which, even its day, was conclusively disproved, and is only maintained by constant indoctrination?

A choice bit of the story is how Sonnabend, one of the frontline doctors actually treating gays, was pushed out and his career destroyed by higher ups that had already decided on a story. After a few years, the Science became Settled, and anyone that disagreed was an AIDS denialist.

"AIDS denialism" became a thing that would cost you your career and get you purged from the Scientific Community. Reminds me of Global Warming... Sorry, Climate Change.

"Never again, one would think with real confidence. If it achieved nothing else, certainly the South African holocaust of 330,000 unnecessary deaths would sound the death knell for AIDS denialism."

This fucker is politely shitting on another doctor's legacy... while implying that even questioning AIDS is like Holocaust denialism. Remember the 330,000 goy! The Science Is Settled.™ Also he's in HuffPo!

P.S. Just realized that none of this answers Aeoli's actual question, but I guess there's some context now.